What Makes a Women's Course?

This is the kind of information women need before spending precious vacation time, not to mention money, on a course's big reputation. Not all courses men adore are designed with the kind of thought, skill and care it takes to replicate the transcendent golf experience from the back tees for women playing from the forward set.

Which is why we at Golf For Women continue to come up with our own course rankings. Never mind that women make up about a quarter of all golfers, and more than 40 percent of new ones. Believe it or not, at a golf course you are entitled to find more than a well-stocked women's locker room, socks in the pro shop and your tee freshly mowed. Every now and then, you should be able to hit off the forward tees and have your ball land in the area the designer intended, not get caught in a literal no-man's land, where clearing a stream or making a dogleg turn on the next shot is next to impossible. We should be able to swing a fairway wood and reach a green in regulation. Not once in a lifetime--a few times a round. It's that thing they call "golf" that we've heard so much about, but don't find often enough--even with rankings in one hand and a global positioning device in the other.

Mothballing our Miss Congeniality crowns for just a moment, most course designs and rankings should make us mad as hell and not willing to take it any more. To us, it seems that courses are not only designed almost entirely by low-handicap men for low-handicap men, they're also rated by low-handicap men. From tee to green, the average man plays a different game than the average woman. They hit the ball higher and farther, and they can put more spin and control on a ball coming into a green.

> the average 18-hole score for women is 114

> GFW readers played an average of 52 rounds in 2004

> the first universal course-rating system was created in 1893 by a woman, Issette Pearson, of the U.K.

> the average woman's drive is 140 yards

> 64% of women golfers have handicaps over 28

> California has the most GFW Top 50 Courses with 8, followed by Florida with 6 and Arizona with 4

GFW is missing a whole lot. I have played "women friendly" courses. Other than the forward tees are set short (approx 5,000 yds or less) there was little to recommend the course or the amenaties or the attitude of the staff. Most certainly, the USGA stats support the claim that women are short hitters, i.e. drives of under 160. Personaly, a course is "friendly" when the starters and marshalls accord my group the same deference as that given to men. It should also mean that there is sufficient tissue in the washrooms and portapotties. They set out more than one set of tees rated for women, i.e. if the forwards are at 5,100, then give me a set at around 5,6 so that I'm happy too. My home course has gone women friendly and no par 3 will exceed 110 yds. That's a wedge!!!

GFW is missing a whole lot. I have played "women friendly" courses. Other than the forward tees are set short (approx 5,000 yds or less) there was little to recommend the course or the amenaties or the attitude of the staff. Most certainly, the USGA stats support the claim that women are short hitters, i.e. drives of under 160. Personaly, a course is "friendly" when the starters and marshalls accord my group the same deference as that given to men. It should also mean that there is sufficient tissue in the washrooms and portapotties. They set out more than one set of tees rated for women, i.e. if the forwards are at 5,100, then give me a set at around 5,6 so that I'm happy too. My home course has gone women friendly and no par 3 will exceed 110 yds. That's a wedge!!!

17412[/snapback]

Debit,

Would you consider that courses make more accomodations for seniors than women golfers???

Women friendly, men friendly, senior friendly, what difference does it make. I like to see golf courses for myself that make me use all my clubs in my bag. I like to see holes that make me shape shots left and right. I like to see shots that you have to use your imagination, and putts that aren't flat nor like putting over a buried VW in them either. I like to reach par 4 with irons, and not with friggin fw woods, unless of course I have screwed up somewhere along the line.

This doesn't have anything to do with whether you are man or woman, but merely decent set up courses. Something with a clue as to what design in golf courses is all about. I guess they're called good courses, and I'm afraid they are at a premium everywhere.

MrParr1Noid, In response to your post, the problem with many courses is that they don't have sufficient tees or sufficient variety of tees to allow players of different abilities enjoy the game. GFW is advocating that short courses (5000 yds or less) are "women friendly". Certainly, that length gives the short-hitter a better chance to have fun. IMHO, it's always more fun if you have a chance to score well. My hdcp is in the mid-teens, but I do indeed hit my driver 200-220 yds (contrary to the USGA norms for women). You still have to get the ball in the hole, but when courses have shortened all of the par 3s to less than 110 yds and moved a par 4 to only 215 (minimum of range) -- I'm not happy. I often do play from the middle tees, but am not comfortable if they are longer than 6,000 yds. Players should play from tees that suit their individual game and abilities and get-over the hangups that any tee is age or gender specific. This would also IMHO speed play.

Debit

I couldn't agree more.........Being not so long off the tee anymore, I've moved up to the so called white tees, some of which totally lack imagination when it comes to placing them. Superintendents and greenskeeps should get off the dead arses and actually think things out, insofaras forward tees or other than the tips are concerned.

I don't know where you live but if you are ever in Tennessee, you have to play the Bears Traces Courses, I believe there are 5 of them scattered across the state. These are Jack Nicklaus courses where what ever set (5 I think) of tees you play from, all have appoximately the same shot to the green. I'm sure there are many other courses, I just mention these as a standard for balance of playability.

Today there is such a huge range of players distances off the tee it's unreal. For example, there aren't many women who can hit it like Michelle Wie and not many men who can hit it like Tiger, yet many newer courses are being set up as if we do hit the ball that long.

I'm getting old and getting weak, and getting short, and losing my athlethic ability, and I really hate to lose any advantage of ball and club technology, and where I get 10 to 15 yards, the yoots of today get 25 to 50 yards. I don't know where the answers lie but something, somewhere, somehow, rules will need to be placed, and equipment will have to be regulated through fine tuning, whatever that means.

Debit

 

...some of which totally lack imagination when it comes to placing them.  Superintendents and greenskeeps should get off the dead arses and actually think things out, insofaras forward tees or other than the tips are concerned.

Come now. You don't believe it took imagination and skill to place that 60' pine only 75 yds directly in front of the forward teebox? One local pub linx built a new forward teebox. The women complained that a huge oak on the left impinged on their drives. No response. During reconstruction of the middle teebox, the middle tees were set on the forward teebox. Within 10 days, the tree limbs had been trimmed. Any you said course management doesn't care about women!

One of the reasons for electing to play from the middles vs. forwards, is because of the teebox placement. IMHO, the player often has a much clearer and cleaner look at the hole from the middle tees, especially on courses where the forwards are just sort of dropped willy nilly off to the side, behind trees, without the advantage of elevation (like closer to the water/marsh and lower), etc. etc.